23529249642_7550788869_z (1)

Last week, we completed our comparison of the Justices’ majority opinions in civil and criminal cases.  This week, we begin our study of the Court’s voting dynamics.  Which Justices agreed most (and least) often?  Today, we track how often every combination of Justices voted together in non-unanimous civil cases between 2000 and 2004.

In Table 396, we report Chief Justice McMorrow’s rate of agreement with the other Justices who served on the Court during these years.  Chief Justice McMorrow’s closest match during these years appears to have been Justice Freeman.  They agreed in 68.75% of non-unanimous civil cases in 2000 and 61.54% in 2001, but 93.75% in 2002, 92.86% in 2003 and 86.67% in 2004.  For 2000, Chief Justice McMorrow voted most often with Justices Miller, Heiple and Bilandic (75% each), and least often with Chief Justice Harrison (53.33%).  For 2001, she voted most often with Justice Freeman (61.54%) and Justice Kilbride (53.85%), and least often with Chief Justice Harrison (30.77%).  In 2002, Chief Justice McMorrow voted with Justice Rarick in the only non-unanimous civil case on which they both sat.  She voted with Justice Freeman in 93.75% of non-unanimous civil cases.  The third highest agreement rate was with Justice Kilbride at 60%.  Chief Justice McMorrow voted least often with Justice Fitzgerald (46.67%) and Chief Justice Harrison (46.15%).  For 2003, Chief Justice McMorrow voted most often with Justice Freeman (92.86%) and Justice Rarick (80%), and least often with Justice Kilbride (35.71%).  Finally, for 2004, Chief Justice McMorrow agreed most often with Justice Freeman (86.67%) and Justice Garman (85.71%) and least often with Justice Kilbride (56.25%) and Justice Rarick (37.5%).

Table 396

In Table 397, we review the agreement rates for Justices Miller and Freeman.  No particular Justice stands out in Justice Miller’s voting data as a close match.  He voted with Chief Justice McMorrow and Justice Heiple 75% of the time in 2000.  He voted with Justice Freeman 56.25% of the time in 2000, and in half of the divided cases in 2001.  He voted with Justice Rathje in 64.29% of divided civil cases in 2000, with Justice Bilandic in 62.5% of divided cases, and with Chief Justice Harrison only 30.77% of the time.  Justices Miller, Thomas and Fitzgerald all participated in only two non-unanimous civil cases in 2001, and voted together in both.  Aside from Chief Justice McMorrow, Justice Freeman had no other close matches in voting patterns during these years.  He voted with Justice Heiple in 68.75% of non-unanimous civil cases in 2000, but about half the time with Justices Kilbride (53.85% in 2001, 68.75% in 2002, 42.86% in 2003 and 56.25% in 2004) and Thomas (41.67% in 2001, 52.94% in 2002, 53.85% in 2003 and 75% in 2004).  Justice Freeman voted with Chief Justice Harrison less than half the time (46.67% in 2001, 46.15% in 2001 and 35.71% in 2002).

Table 397

In Table 398, we report additional data for Justice Freeman, and data for Justices Heiple, Rathje, Garman and Chief Justice Harrison.  We see here that Justice Freeman voted relatively often with Justice Rarick in 2003 (90%), but much less often in 2004 (50%).  He voted with Justice Fitzgerald slightly more than half the time (53.85% in 2001, 50% in 2002, 78.57% in 2003 and 62.5% in 2004).  Justice Heiple voted with Justices Rathje and Bilandic about two-thirds of the time in 2000 (64.29% and 62.5%, respectively), but voted with Chief Justice Harrison in only 26.67% of non-unanimous civil cases.  Justice Rathje voted with Chief Justice Harrison in 30.77% of non-unanimous civil cases in 2000, and with Justice Bilandic in 42.86% of cases.  We’ve seen already that Chief Justice Harrison disagreed much of the time with several other Justices in non-unanimous civil cases.  His agreement rate with Justice Bilandic was 53.33% in 2000.  He agreed with Justice Fitzgerald 61.54% of the time in 2001 and 46.15% in 2002.  Similarly, Justice Garman voted with Justice Freeman (45.45% in 2001, 56.25% in 2002, 57.14% in 2003 and 71.43% in 2004) and Chief Justice Harrison (45.45% in 2002, 53.85% in 2003) only about half the time.

Table 398

Finally, we report the rest of the data for Justices Garman, Kilbride, Thomas and Rarick in Table 399 below.  Justice Garman voted quite similarly to Justice Thomas from the beginning of their tenures (100% in 2001, 93.75% in 2002, 84.62% in 2003 and 85.71% in 2004).  The next most similar voting record was Justice Fitzgerald’s (72.73% in 2001, 93.33% in 2002, 50% in 2003 and 71.43% in 2004).  Justice Garman was often on opposite sides of non-unanimous cases from Justices Kilbride (45.45% in 2001, 66.67% in 2002, 28.57% in 2003 and 42.85% in 2004) and Rarick (40% in 2003, 35.71% in 2004).  Justice Kilbride’s closest matches on the Court during these years in civil cases were Chief Justice Harrison (61.54% in 2001, 69.23% in 2002) and Justice Rarick (100% in 2002, 70% in 2003, 68.75% in 2004).  He voted with Justice Fitzgerald only a shade less often (69.23% in 2001, 53.33% in 2002, 50% in 2003 and 78.57% in 2004), and with Justice Thomas even less often (41.67% in 2001, 56.25% in 2002, 23.08% in 2003 and 56.25% in 2004).  Aside from Justice Garman, Justice Fitzgerald was probably the Justice most similar to Justice Thomas’ views in civil cases (75% in 2001, 100% in 2002, 69.23% in 2003, 87.5% in 2004).  He voted with Justice Rarick about half the time (55.56% in 2003, 50% in 2004), and with Chief Justice Harrison less often (41.67% in 2001, 42.86% in 2002).  Justice Rarick voted with Justice Fitzgerald in 90% of non-unanimous civil cases in 2003, and 62.5% of the time in 2004.

Table 399

Join us back here tomorrow as we review the Justices’ agreement rates for criminal cases between 2000 and 2004.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Travis Wise (no changes).